Comments inline :
-Mischa's phone
On Nov 23, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Mo McRoberts <mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 23 Nov 2011, at 18:42, Peter Williams wrote:
>
>>
>> Stop calling a "cert" ontology too, since it precious little to do with certificates - as anyone understands the term. The bindings are not signed, and in RDF land show no sign of being signed in the next decade.
>
> +1
>
> People have enough trouble understanding the difference between certificates and keys as it is.
>
> (RDF signing is nontrivial, because ideally you want to sign the graph, not the specific serialisation; in order to sign, you need consistent ordering of triples, and the only way you can order triples with bnodes as the subject is by their content… arriving at a consistent a graph consisting solely of bnodes isn't entirely straightforward, particularly if there are any referencing 'loops').
The signing of a given RDF document (g-text) makes perfect sense to me, especially when the use case is signing some triples and sending/receiving them across the wire. Or am I missing something? I recon that XML signing is both widely supported and established in the community. Saying that I agree that rdfxml is not the most elegant serialisation...
The current RDF WG have talked about and are working on a method to skolemise bnodes [1]. This should allow for triples to be sorted and signed in a straightforward manner. HEAD of the 4store repo supports this fwiw.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemisation
Note that in ^^ the term that people agreed upon was : .well-known/genid/ not /steveH/. Must update the wiki at some point.
Mischa
>
> M.
>
> --
> Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space,
> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
> Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
>
>
>
>